thank you to the gentleman for yielding. this amendment is just another devious republican attempt to undermine efforts to end the decade-long scourge of rape and murder in congo. i've been in congo many times. i served in the state department, i know the area. . your statement that there's no company able to do this is absolutely incorrect. there's a company in coral gables, florida, they certify every bit of their metal is conflict free. it is possible to do. now, why is this important? well, all the five million people that have died in eastern n go since rwanda in 1992, 1993 -- in the eastern con gow since rwanda in 1992, 1993, are

armed militias getting their money by taking minerals out of the ground, selling them abroad. using slave labor. the way you enslave a man is to rape his wife in front of him and then bring him down and chain him and make him dig up the minerals. that's what's been going on there it's been going on for a long time and everyone in this room is benefiting from that. everybody who has a cell phone tungstentongue sten -- in it. what this amendment is about is companies who will not go through the process. they do not want to do it. they want to get it from wherever it comes from, they don't care who it is. now you can't tell me and i know enough about boeing and other companies, that they know their supply chain right now to where it starts in the ground somewhere. everything that's in a plane,

they know where it came from. for them to say they don't know where it cames from or i can't know is simply that they want to get it on the cheap. and don't care about the human values in central africa. now, the gentleman has taken -- given me the opening which i didn't know if i'd have, but his own church, the christian reform urch of north america, their coordinator of office of social funding section 1502, amendment number 34, is immoral. it will result in violations and will undo works toward conflict free mining in africa. this is a longtime battle and we have had no one come up with any other way to deal with this

except to autooff the money to the militias. to say there's not armed conflict in eastern congo is someone who has their head buried in the sand because if you go over there, you know it's con frict from rwanda and uganda and all the countries in that area because this stuff is valuable. people want it. they want it on the cheap. eally. >> i much, maybe like yourself, have problems with my church denominations. i've challenged them to talk to the missionaries who i've talked to, who are on the coast, who we're now seeing -- mr. mcdermott: reclaiming my time, i get your point. you're saying your church, in wherever they're located in michigan or wherever, they are out of touch with what's going on on the ground. i'm in touch with the people on the ground. there are groups like heal

africa, which have been operating a hospital in goma, which has been filled with people who come from this whole process. when you go and talk to them, they say the only way you're ever going to do it here is cut off the money. that means saying to people, you've got to know where that camer tungsten or tantalum from and was it gotten by using slave labor? if you're unwilling to do that as a company in the united states, you have no moral fiber. if you're not willing to say you will not use slave labor for the material that's in your product, in your cell phone, and believe me it wouldn't be hard to get a boycott going in this country against some folks who want to -- but nobody wants to come out in the open. this amendment gets slid in at the last minute every year. coons, urbin, senator

barney frank, we worked on this. we've heard it all. the s.e.c. doesn't want to do it. they don't want to do anything that doesn't have to do with paper shuffling and letting the derivatives run through the economy. they simply have been given this because -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman's time has expired. mr. mcdermott: i urge my colleagues to vote no. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from michigan. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. >> i'd like a recorded vote on that. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 1, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from michigan will be postponed. it is now in order to consider amendment number 35 printed in house report 114-639.

for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan seek recognition? >> mr. speaker, i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 35 printed in house report 114-639 offered by mr. huizenga of michigan. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 794, the gentleman from michigan, mr. huizenga, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from michigan. mr. high zen fwa: i yield myself such time as i macon susme my amendment would prohibit any funds from being used by the s.e.c. to implement, administer the ineffective pay ratio disclosure mandate in section 953-b of the dodd frank act. under dodd frank it requires all publicly traded companies to calculate and disclose for each filing with the s.e.c. the median annual total compensation of all employees of the company, excluding the c.e.o. and disclose the annual total

compensation of the c.e.o. and calculate and disclose a ratio comparing those two numbers. in adopting the final rule, the s.e.c. admitted that the pay ratio disclosure provides, quote, no quantity final benefit to public shareholders, yet it will cost public companies billions of dollars in initial and ongoing compliance expenses that could otherwise be used for investment in equipment and job creation. while the s.e.c. provided modest flexibility in the final rule as compared to its initial proposal, the final rule did not mitt gate the most significant burdens that the public companies will face as they collect and calculate the information necessary to comply. companies must still all include all employees, including temporary, part-time, seasonal employees and non-u.s. employees into their pay ratio calculation. the rule's 5% exclusion for non-u.s. employees which includes any foreign employee whose salary data is protected by their home country privacy

law, will not defray the significant compliance costs which the s.e.c. estimates at $1.3 billion in initial mpliance costs and $526 in ongoing annual cost basis. even former financial services chairman, barney frank, acknowledged that burden before a september 24, 2010, hearing, stating, and i quote, i would note again that it was a senate provision and i think our inclination is to see to what extent it can be lessened as a burden and if not we would be able to work and try to change that next year, end quote. that was almost six years ago. during the same hear, the democrat witness, mr. martin bailey, stated, i am quite concerned about the level of poverty in the united states. i'm quite concerned about the fact that ordinary workers have not done very well in the last few years. i don't see how publishing that ratio helps anybody very much. i'm not a big fan of that, end

quote. amen, i could not agree more, mr. bailey. his dissent, s.e.c. commissioner gallagher stated that perceived income inequality is not the province of the security laws or commission. additionally, s.e.c. chair mary jo white expressed similar concerns about the dodd-frank act, noting that several provisions, quote, appear more directed at exerting societal pressure on companies to change behavior rather than to disclose financial information that primarily informs investment decisions. again, i could in the agree more, mr. speaker. this useless disclosure requirement creates a number of lengthy and burdensome reporting obligations whose costs far outweighs any perceived benefits. this includes failing to provide shareholders with useful information or facilitate a better understand og of pay practices which some falsely trumpet this provision would do. mr. speaker, we are all concerned with create manager jobs in our various congressional districts and instead of companies being

forced to spend millions of dollars trying to comply with a regulatory mandate for which the s.e.c. has been unable to quantify any benefits to the public, shouldn't these burdensome costs be converted and used by manufacturers and retailers and other public companies for much needed investment and job creation? i think so. i urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote in fare of this amendment and i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? mr. serrano: i claim time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. serrano: i rise in opposition to this amendment. it would repeal the requirement that companies show just how much more the c.e.o. is paid compared to the company's median worker. why are republicans so scared about reporting this number? i imagine my republican colleagues will describe the alleged cost to industry. indeed industry has offered widely -- wildly exaggerated

estimates of the s.e.c.'s initial proposal, 10 times with they -- what the s.e.c. economist arrived at. there's no indication that they've yet to come up with any credible estimate for the cost of the final rule. in fact new york one has. as the house financial services committee has failed to convene a hearing on the final rule and the flexibility provided by the s.e.c. worse, the committee has failed to hold a hearing on the bill itself. this congress, rather the republicans are rushing this bill through the house and once again seek to repeal outright this provision in dodd-frank. in the past, and before the s.e.c. finalized its flexible rule, democrats offered amendments to burden some businesses. republicans weren't interested then. and are apparently worried that the american people, public, and

investors will finally see that not all public companies pay their employees the same. in fact, some companies pay their c.e.o. 400 times the median employee. my republican colleagues aren't concerned that c.e.o.'s in the rest of the 1% continue to take most of the income and wealth of this country. my colleagues aren't concerned that minorities and low-income americans haven't seen a raise in decades. the s.e.c. has provided industry with as much flexibility as it could while still being consistent with the congressional mandate. i'll also note that the requirement doesn't affect small businesses or emerging growth companies but it's targeted to companies that retail investors overwhelmingly choose to invest in. i know that industry, especially the global manufacturers, pose the s.e.c. rule.

i think the information provided by this number matters. it will go a long way to identify the disparity between the top 1% and the everyday worker. it will go a long way toward enabling everyday investors to fund companies that properly compensate their employees or punish those that inappropriately compensate their c.e.o. i urge my colleagues to think seriously about this amendment and i urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. and i reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from michigan -- the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from michigan. mr. huizenga: may i quine the time? the chair: you have one minute and the gentleman has two minutes. mr. huizenga: i have the right to close? the chair: the gentleman from new york has the right to close. mr. huizenga: first i'd like to point out to my colleague from new york that he's wrong. we marked this bill up in

committee in april of this year. the interesting thing is they want it both ways. we have to follow the s.e.c. until they don't want to do it and they disagree with it. they disagree with the statement that the s.e.c. apparently has come up with that this is going to cost $1.7 billion in this initial year. they want to say that the obama economy is great until it isn't. and it doesn't work in their favor. i too am very concerned and join my colleagues of all stripes to say that this economy has not responded the way it needs to and we need to have those wages up and here we are, robbing peter to pay paul because we're going to take that money that could go into investing in equipment and productivity and actual workers and we're going to do meaningless reports to this that tell us nothing in the words of the s.e.c. chair. not my words, the words of the s.e.c. chair say that this brings no meaningful information to people in the economy. so i don't understand why other than window dressing once again

and trying to set up a straw man argument for why the businesses are doing what they're doing, why they would move ahead. with that, i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from new york has two minutes remaining. mr. serrano: i have every never seen a corporation tell you that studying their business practices is well spent money. everyone wants to keep everyone in the dark as to what is going on. the american people have a sense of what's going on, we heard enough especially during this last campaign about the 1% and the 99%. we've heard enough about how on wall street, in my city of new york, part of the problem was the lack of supervision by the s.e.c. and part of the problem, a large part, was thibault nusses that these folks were yet getting, i -- was the bonuses that these folks were getting. a $50 million bonus in some cases was not unheard of.

i think that every so often the american people need to know and get information that may seem like a waste of money to some teem but actually can get at a problem and we need to know in this capitalistic society that we have, and we're not about to change that, we all like it, i like it, i want to keep it, but i think we have to try to look for ways to balance so that 99% of the people are not in danger of hurting 1% of the folks are in great shape. to find out that c.e.o.'s sometimes get 400 times the salary of one of their workers is totally outrageous. and the american people should know that. should know, especially in the cases of stockholders, there's a lot of stockholders, small stockholders and they want to know what company they're investing in, so i think that this rule, this approach, is good and i think your amendment

just tries to, i'm not saying you do, but your amendment, the final result will be to try to cover up the truth and that's not a good thing and i yield ack think balance of my time. the chair: the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from michigan. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. the amendment is -- mr. serrano: recorded vote. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from michigan will be postponed. the chair understands that amendment number 36 will not be offered. it is now in order to consider amendment 37 printed in house report 114-639. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey seek recognition? mr. lance: i have an amendment at the desk, mr. speaker. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 37 printed in house report 114-639

offered by mr. lance of new jersey. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 794, the gentleman from new jersey, mr. lance, and a member opposed, will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from new jersey. mr. lance: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise today to offer an amendment to eliminate the potential of iran's gaining access to the u.s. dollar. as iran continues to violate ternational law with illicit allistic missile test, as it destabilizes the middle east, the obama administration may be willing to ease restrictions on ran's access to the dollar and potentially reward with coveted access to world financial markets. we cannot allow this to happen.

since agreeing to the iranian deal last year, the obama administration has seemingly gone out of its way to appease iran. sanctions were lifted with little to show in the way of nuclear disarmament. the rogue regime is now selling oil on the international market, and iran has received access to tens of billions of dollars held abroad and has signed deals worth over $100 billion in foreign investment. allowing iran to have access to the dollar would mark an unprecedented additional concession to the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism. access to the dollar would be an undeserved reward to a country that tortures its own people, denies human rights to women and has the blood of americans and our allies on its hands.

but in an effort to advance the nuclear agreement, i worry the president may act unilaterally as he has done so often in the past and permit the treasury department and other federal entities to proceed with granting iran access to the dollar it so desperately wants. the vote for this amendment will eliminate that possibility , and, mr. chairman, let me say this does not change what is currently the situation in this country. last summer treasury secretary jack lew testified that iranian banks will not be able to clear , . dollars through new york ld relationships with u.s. institutions or with u.s. banks. the secretary made clear that they will continue to be denied access to the world's largest financial and commercial market. this amendment simply puts that promise into statutory law, and

that is why i have proposed it. the lance amendment will eliminate any possibility that we might move in the other direction. reserve s adoption and the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? mr. serrano: claim the time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. serrano: i don't, as you can say, have much to say on this because it's really an interesting situation. it's an amendment looking for a problem that doesn't exist. it's an amendment looking for the possibility that the president -- here we go again -- the gentleman in the white house, the president may do something he hasn't said anything about doing. the treasury department says there are no current plans to amend the regulation and that flexibility is not an issue at

this point because no one's discussing this. and the second part to this amendment is the underlying feeling by some members, still, that the deal with iran was a bad deal and that that deal won't work and that somehow we'll be left holding the bag. well, giving peace a chance, as the song says, is never a bad thing to do. i would hope that in the future we deal only with amendments that speak to an existing problem and not to an amendment that simply speaks about what if. we have too many what ifs in amendments. i oppose the amendment and hope our colleagues will vote against it. the chair: does the gentleman reserve? mr. serrano: i reserve, thank you. the chair: the gentleman from missouri -- new jersey. mr. lance: thank you, mr. chairman. let me say that this is not designed against any one president. this would be put into

statutory law, and it would proceed after this president leaves office and i believe it is important that this fundamental principle that iran not have access to the u.s. dollar should be in statutory law and not merely a matter of executive action and that is why i have proposed the amendment, and i hope that all members will consider the amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from new york. mr. serrano: i would just like to note that we speak about it's not directed at any one president but we have a unique system. we only have one president at a time, so it is directed at one president. and i suspect if we were going to stay in session, which we're not, for every week from now until the end of the year, you would see more and more and more bills up until december 31

bills that would try to limit the power or the -- the power of the office of the presidency cause of who occupies it right now and the disdain that so many members have for our president. i see the iran deal as a possibility for peace. maybe history will say that i was naive, but i know the alternative and the alternative is war. and so anytime i can take a chance on evading and not having war, let's go for it. and secondly, to legislate by suggesting that something could happen and therefore we have to head it off at the path is not the way to legislate. and i would hope we could vote against this amendment and i urge its opposition to it and i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back.

the gentleman from new jersey. mr. lance: thank you. let me conclude by saying that the iranian agreement is, of course, extremely controversial. it was voted down by the house of representatives. unfortunately, there was never any vote in the other house ecause cloture was not achieved. the president submitted the iranian agreement as an agreement, not as a treaty. based on the fact that legislation has been passed to make it an agreement. i think it is important as a matter of statutory law we make sure that iran not have access to the u.s. dollar and that is why i proposed the amendment and i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment from the gentleman from new jersey. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to.

it is now in order to consider amendment number 38 printed in house report 114-639. for what purpose does the gentleman from iowa seek recognition? mr. king: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk, number 38. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 38 printed in house report 114-639 offered by mr. king of iowa. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 794, the gentleman from iowa, mr. king, and a member opposed, will each control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from iowa. mr. king: thank you, mr. chairman. my amendment is an amendment that i offered before in the past and it simply says none of the funds made available by this act may be used to enforce executive order 13166. that's an executive order that was filed by then president clinton on august 16 in the year 2000 in the last months of his presidency that directs all federal fund recipients, and that would include federal

contractors and stake and local governments as well as the federal government to facilitate language interpretation with anyone who seeks to engage with them. that has been an executive order that's been highly costly, not only to the taxpayers but to the consumers in this country, and in time and in money and it was one of the initial things that began to slow down this process of assimilation in america. we know that common language is the most powerful unifying force known throughout all of history, whether it's english or whether it's some other language in some other country and we have a strong effort to establish english as the official language of the united states. i happen to be the author of that accomplishment in the state of iowa. 30 other states have english as the official language and some 83% of americans support this policy and yet president clinton's executive order subverts this and works to fracture us rather than unify us. it will save us billions of

dollars. i didn't bring that pig to the floor with me, but we -- bring that figure to the floor with me, but we know that and we are 16 years into this and it's been destructive. i want to unify us as a people. this would be one of the steps and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york seek recognition? mr. serrano: to claim the opposition, the time in opposition. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. serrano: and i won't speak in spanish. i'll only speak in english. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. serrano: the gentleman is a person we all know well. he can't pass up the opportunity to say something about immigrants and say something about english as the official language. let me start off by saying this. i don't speak for any community and i certainly don't know what other communities go through, but i can tell you that in the hispanic, latino community when people sit around the dinner table and the issue of language

comes up, it's not a plot against the english language. it's usually a conversation about how the children and the grandchildren no longer speak spanish, they speak only english, and that's just a fact. number two, this assimilation issue, do you really think that someone would leave all their small belongings behind, leave in many cases their wife and their children, come into this country undocumented -- i'm assuming we're talking about undocumented people -- to not learn english, to purposely keep themselves away from integrating into the american society? on the contrary, some of the jokes are that some of the better -- not better but stronger feeling americans, the ones that want to vote, the ones that want to wave the flag strongly and proudly are people who came from other countries. and just about everybody has

somebody that came from another country, even now or a long time ago. and the reason that president clinton and so many of us have supported the issue -- and i'm speaking about the first president clinton, not the next one -- the fact that we support the issue of giving services is because many ways this could be a constitutional question. i'll give you an example. i'm not a lawyer, but it says the pursuit of happiness. life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. that's what we're promised. well, life could be a paramedic being able to speak to you in a language that you understand. liberty could be you in a trial getting an interpreter to what you have to say to that judge and to that jury can be understood. pursuit of happiness is a

special issue but allows you to have two cultures a at the same time. i speak spanish, i speak english, i'm a member of the u.s. congress. i don't think the fact that i speak spanish has made me a worse congressman worse american. i was brn in american territory, i speak a lot of spanish, i grew up speaking spanish and english at the same time. i'm still working on both, to be better at them every day. but i'm a living example that there's nothing wrong with speaking more than one language. but we in this country have a couple of fear this is a set us apart from the rest of the world and make us less than the rest of the world and that is the fear of languages. in some other countries in europe and so on, children at the age of 10 speak two, three, four languages. grownups speak a couple of languages. it doesn't hurt them in any way. what's wrong if you speak another language? here we're talking about services. going to the motor vehicle and

getting someone who can understand what you're saying until you learn to speak english. but trust me, the big line here is, until you learn to speak english. no one wants to come here and remain only speaking spanish or their home country and forgetting english. i reserve. the chair: the gentleman from new york reserves. the gentleman from iowa. mr. king: thank you, mr. chairman. i'd say first in response to the gentleman, i respect fizz position and his background but i'd say he had a development in the greek language he might think of that pursuit of happiness as what our founders did, they called it eudemonia a greek word that means developing the whole human being, the body, the mind, the spirit, the soul, all together. pursuit of happiness wasn't about a tailgate party but about becoming the best human being that you could. it's an example of how we're divided by language rather than unified by a common language.

another example would be israel. it became a country in 1948. in 1954 they adopted he braw as their -- hebrew as their official language i asked them why. think said we saw the example of the united states you embraced english as the common language, it unioned the people. we needed a language to unify the israeli people. one day i got in a tax key cab, there was a gentleman there, spoke perfect english, didn't seem to fit what a normal taxicab worker. bs nia. did you learn language before -- english when you came here? he said no, not a word. i said how can you speak english so well? he said it helps when you have to. i'm discouraged to the taxpayer dollars contributing to the division of america rather than let us have an encouragement to pull together in the same language. this is what this is about. it's a fiscally responsible amendment that addresses an 83%

majority and 3 -- in 1 state this is a have already taken this act. i urge its adoption and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from new york. mr. serrano: how much time do i have? the chair: the gentleman has a minute and a half. mr. serrano: i've been informed you picked a bad example, israel has more than one language. you picked that example of someone who learned english. well, everybody wants to learn to speak english. if you go to my community in the south bronx, you see small business owners, those are the best examples. some of them speak what we called call broken english. some of them speak perfect english. their children, half of them no longer speak spanish, they speak english. children are attending university, they're not going to be bodega owners when they grow up, they most likely -- or cab

drivers. they most likely will go work on wall street or somewhere else or teach. in other words, we have a pattern in this country that hasn't been broken. what made us great is the fact that people come here they adapt they become part of this country and then they defend this country with everything they've got including their blood. that happens all the time. happens all the time and it's not going to stop happening. so if you have a worry, and i've heard you for years, that somehow speaking spanish is going to wreck this country, on the contrary. just learn to speak spanish and you'll feel much better. the chair: does the gentleman reserve? mr. serrano: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from iowa. mr. king: how much time do i have remaining? mr. king: -- the chair: the gentleman has two minutes. mr. king: to the gentleman, i give some thought to the story of the tower of babel and we

know that the construction manager there was nimrod, building a tower to the heavens and they had the arrogance to believe they could bypass god and get to heaven without him. the lord looked down on the tower of babel and said, behold, they are one people. they speak all one language. and now -- nothing that they propose to do will now be impossible for them. and he scrambled their languages and scattered them to the four winds and humanity on the planet has been at each other's throats ever since. that's the message of the tow over babel. my message is, unify us as one people. it's not discouraging the use of another language but it's discouraging the idea of ethnic enclaves, that we should isolate ourselves in neighborhoods, not be assimilating in the broader neighborhood. i'll give an example to the gentleman. when bush was president and we had a representative from the department of labor testified before the small business committee and she said we have a problem. we don't have enough workers in

factlies -- factories to run our punch presses and lathes. why is that? she said the applicants are not literate in the english language and we have great difficulty in teaching them to operate the machines. i said i can understand that if they're first generation immigrants. in fact, i can understand it if some of them are second generation. she said even third generation, so the pickup of the language and transition into the next generations is not happening at the speed it did because our enclaves are getter larger and more populated and people are more isolated into that. i want to encourage people to be successful. to go out and get an education. to assimilate more broadly. i want to be able to look across this country and know that i can walk into a city council meeting anywhere and know it's being conducted in english. i want people to be able to communicate with each other. when i go to a foreign country and they speak their language, i get the sense of that too, that we gravitate toward common kind and the more common we can be,

the more things we can have common to each other, then the more likely we are to be bonded together. that is what this amendment is about. i urge its adoption. i yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expire. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from iowa. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. un voto, por favor. the chair: the gentleman -- further proceedings on the amendment of the gentleman from iowa will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from missouri seek recognition? mr. luetkemeyer: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will designate the amendment please. the clerk: amendment number 39 printed in house report 114-639, offered by mr. luetkemeyer of missouri.

the chair: pursuant to house resolution 794, the gentleman from missouri, mr. luetkemeyer, and a member opposed each will control five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from missouri. mr. luetkemeyer: thank you, mr. chairman. how does the government get rid of an industry it doesn't like? simple. it cuts that industry off from the financial services sector. the life blood of every business in this country. sounds impossible, doesn't it? however, that's exactly what the fdic is doing in conjunction with the department of justice. this point we are all familiar with operation choke point. it's a program designed to force legally operating and licensed entities out of business by choking them off from the financial services they need. and what started with nondepository lenders has spread to many other industries. reports indicate that the fdic and d.o.j. continue to pressure financial institution this is a service the gun, ammunition and tobacco industries. these are legal industries and

it is my belief that no joint fdic or d.o.j. operation should broadly target lawful commerce. i want to be clear. i strongly support the fdic and other federal banking regulators' authority to monitor institutions and identify ritzky behavior. what can't be tolerated is the federal government abusing its authority to target entire industries, including those that obey the laws and live within the rules. this is a republican issue -- this isn't a republican issue, a democrat issue, this isn't a liberal or conservative issue. this is an issue of the d.o.j., fdic and potentially other regulators stepping outside the law. we worked on a bipartisan basis to inform the d.o.j., fdic and others of the consequences of operation choke point. those concerns fall on deaf ears. operation choke point is still happening. in the last few months i've heard from a tobacco shop in florida and just this week a

veteran owned shooting sports company in virginia. i'm now concerned that operation choke point, -- orminge choke point-like tactics have spread beyond the fdic to the comptroller of currency. we continue to hear that o.c.c. examiners are applying pressure in an effort to force banks to drop long-standing customers and correspondent banking relationships for no valid reason. i'd like to remind my colleague this is a similar amendments to prohibit the use of funds for operation choke point were attached with opposition to appropriations bills in fiscal years 2015 and 2016. in february, the house passed a bipartisan vote of 250-169, h.r. 766, the financial institution customer protection act that legislation included measure this is a would prohibit operation choke point through increased transparency and responsible governance. this amendment is an important step in ensuring that the fdic and other federal banking

regulators continue their job but to do so without abuse of power. i ask my colleagues for support of this amendment which again has generated no opposition and been adopted by voice vote in previous years. with that, i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman reserves. does any member seek time in opposition? mr. serrano: i do. the chair: the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. serrano: i rise in strong oopposition to this amendment. at the behest of house republicans' inquiry, the department of justice offers a professional responsibility investigating whether there was misconduct or targeting of legal businesses by operation choke point. in their report from last year found that absolutely nothing no, wrongdoing had occurred. the d.o.j.'s office of professional responsibility concluded that the department of justice attorneys involved in

operation choke point did not engage in professional misconduct and that o.p.r.'s inquiry further determined that civil division employees did not improperly target lawful participants. moreover, a follow owe-on report from the federal deposit insurance corporation from the inspector general states that the fdic's involvement in operation choke point was inconsequence rble to the direction and outcome of the initiative. operation choke point is an enforcement action by the department of justice whose funding is not addressed by this particular appropriations bill. in fact that's part of the large problem with this amendment that really speaks to issues that belong in another bill. what this provision really does is tell the banking regulators not to cooperate with law enforcement when the department of justice has identified mass

market fraud and other abuses of the payments systems. the department of justice has made it a priority to hold the perpetrators of consumer fraud accountable. recently, for example, they prosecuted the operators of lottery scams, the promoters of fake business opportunities, and the criminals behind marketing fraud targeting spanish speaking customers. preventing banking regulators from cooperation with legitimate law enforcement requests would restrict the ability of the civil division, civil protection branch in enforcing consumer protection statutes throughout the united states. operation choke point is just one of the consume brother text branch's effort this is a require cooperation with banking regulators and which have produced significant results. for example, the branch together with u.s. attorneys across the

country obtain over 150 criminal convictions and more than $7 billion in criminal fines, forfeitures, and restitution ordered to victims, limiting the funding it receives will be a serious blow to consumers who need to -- who need the protection of the government from the financial predators. this is something that we should not be doing at this point. we certainly should be doing it in this bill, but we shouldn't be doing it at all. i urge opposition and i reserve. the chair: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from missouri. mr. luetkemeyer: thank you, mr. chairman. as someone that's been on both sides of the table with regard to financial services, as a regulator and on the other side of the table as a business person, i think i have a unique perspective on what's going on here. we also have a couple of reports from the oversight and government reform committee that took the emails of both of these agencies, their own emails and showed them to be

engaged in operation choke point activities intent, not to go after someone that's doing something illegal but going after someone that's doing legal. i did support some of the activity of the regulators and going after bad actors. i support that 110%. as a regulator, i'm with you all the way. their own emails indicate their own internal attorneys legal authorities in their own agency questioned their own ability to be doing what they're doing. now, this should send a chill down the spine of every single american when you have the department of justice's own attorneys telling them we shouldn't be doing this because it's not legal and yet this is the legal entity that's supposed to be leading in our country and providing us protection of the law itself.

you know, it's interesting because the fdic has already implemented a lot of the changes that we requested in our bill. they admitted what was going on in committee to me personally and said we are going to fix the problem. they admitted operation choke point was going on and they were targeting legal businesses doing legal business and said we are going to stop it. the problem it's continuing to go on. as i indicated in my testimony. just this week another one was -- i have an email address that takes information from individuals who have been wronged by operation choke point activities. they're in a legal business doing legal business and we had another hit just this week. over the last several months we had numerous hits from numerous businesses across the country and yet we continue to see this happen. with this i ask for support of the amendment and yield back the balance of my time. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired.

the gentleman from new york. mr. serrano: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman from new york yields back. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from missouri. those in favor, please say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. he amendment is agreed to. pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, proceedings will now resume on those amendments printed in house report 114-639 on which further proceedings were postponed in the following order. amendment number 22 by mrs. blackburn of tennessee. amendment 23 by mr. buck of colorado. amendment number 25 by mr. davidson of ohio. amendment number 28 by mr. garrett of new jersey. amendment 29 by mr. garrett of new jersey. amendment 31 by mr. gosar of arizona. amendment 32 by mr. guinta of new hampshire. amendment 34 by mr. huizenga of

michigan. amendment number 35 by mr. huizenga of michigan. amendment number 38 by mr. king of iowa. the chair will reduce to two minutes time for any vote -- any electronic vote after the irst vote in the series. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 22 printed in house report 114-639 offered by the gentlewoman from tennessee, mrs. blackburn, which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 22 printed in house report 114-639 offered by mrs. blackburn of tennessee. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a 15-minute vote.

[captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.] expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: the nays are 142 and the yeas are 242. the unfinished business is request for amendment number 23 639.ted in house report 114- the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 23 printed in house report number 4-639 offered by mr. buck of colorado. the chair: a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. , this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of

representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 197. the nays are 224. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 25 printed in house report 114-639 offered by the gentleman from ohio, mr. davidson, on which further

proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 25 printed in house report 114-639 offered by mr. davidson of ohio. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 217. the nays are 203. the amendment is adopted.

the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 28 printed in house report 114-639 by the gentleman from new jersey, mr. garrett, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 28 printed in house report 114-639 offered by mr. garrett of new jersey. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested, those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 243. the nays are 180. the amendment is adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 29 printed in house report 114-639 by the gentleman from new jersey, mr. garrett, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 29 printed in house report 114-639 offered by mr. garrett of new jersey. the chair: a recorded vote having been requested, those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is

expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 239. the nays are 182. the amendment is adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 31 printed in house report 114-639 offered by the gentleman from arizona, mr. gosar, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 31 printed in house report 114-639 offered by mr. gosar of arizona. the chair: a recorded vote having been requested, those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and be

counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 236. the nays are 182. the amendment is adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 32 printed in house report 114-639 offered by the gentleman from new hampshire, mr. guinta, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 32 printed in house report 114-639 offered by mr. guinta of new hampshire. -- those in th support of the request for a

recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.] expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: the yeas are 260 and one member 162 and voting present. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 34 printed in which the 114-639

yeas prevailed. the clerk: amendment number 34 printed in house report number 114-639 offered by mr. husinga of michigan. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: the yeas are 236, the nays are 188. the amendment is adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 35 printed in house report 114-639 on which further proceedings were postponed. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 35 114-639.n house report the chair: those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a two life minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: the amendment is

adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 38 printed in ouse report 114-639. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 38 printed in house report 114-639 offered by mr. king of iowa. those in support of the request for a recorded vote will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. , this is a two-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of epresentatives.]

the chair: the yeas are 192 and the nays are 233. the amendment is not adopted. 232. for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky seek recognition? mr. rogers: mr. chairman, i move the committee do now rise. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion that the committee rise. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the motion is adopted. accordingly the committee rises. mr. speaker, the committee of the whole house on the state of the union having had under

consideration reports that it has come to no resolution thereon. the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole house reports that the committee has had under consideration h.r. 5485 and has come to no resolution thereon. pursuant to clause 8, rule 20, proceedings will resume on questions previously postponed. votes will be taken in the following order, ordering the previous question on house resolution 809 and adoption of house resolution 809 if ordered. all electronic votes will be onducted as five-minute votes. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on. the clerk will report the title of the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number 133, resolution providing for consideration of the conference report to accompany the bill senate 524 to authorize the

attorney general to award grants to address the national epidemic of prescription opioids abuse and heroin use and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on ordering the previous question. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.] [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 244. the nays are 179. the previous question is ordered. the question is on the adoption of the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. >> mr. chairman, on that i request a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 243. the nays are 177. the resolution is adopted. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. pursuant to house resolution 809, s. 2943, as amended, is onsidered as passed. pursuant to house resolution 794 and rule 18, the chair declares the house in the committee of the whole house on the ate of the union for

further consideration of h.r. 5485. will the gentleman from georgia, mr. collins, kindly esume the chair. the chair: the house is in the committee of the whole house on the state of the union for further consideration of h.r. 5485. the clerk will report the title. the clerk: a bill making appropriations for financial services and general government for the fiscal year ending september 30, 2017, and for other purposes. the chair: when the committee of the whole rose earlier today, amendment 38 printed in house report 114-639 offered by the gentleman from iowa, mr. ing, had been disposed of. the committee will come to order. please take conversations out of the aisles, out of the seats and out of the back row.

the committee will come to order. the committee will come to order. it is now in order to consider amendment number 40 printed in house report 114-639. for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana seek recognition? must -- mr. messer: mr. chairman, i have an amendment at the desk. the clerk: the clerk will designate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 40 printed in house report 114-639 offered by mr. messer of indiana. the chair: pursuant to house resolution 794, the gentleman from indiana, mr. messer, and a member opposed, each will control five minutes. before the chair recognizes the gentleman from indiana, the committee will come to order.

the committee will not proceed until the committee is in order. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from indiana. mr. messer: thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank my colleague, the gentleman from florida, mr. crenshaw, for his great work on this important bill. mr. chairman, the amendment i'm offering today is a simple and modest proposal. it ensures that the cfpb follows the statute of limitations established by dodd-frank during agency administrative proceedings. this amendment is a response to the cfpb blatantly ignoring the expressed statute of limitations in dodd-frank and the real estate settlement procedures act, otherwise known as respa. in january of 2014, the cfpb launched an administrative

proceeding against a corporation alleging a violation of respa. the director, richard chord ray, claimed the three-year statute of limitations within dodd-frank did not apply to the cfpb's administrative proceedings process. deliberately ignoring the law. using this unprecedented rationale, the cfpb retroactively imposed fines of $109 million. against the corporation for alleged violations dating back to 1995. meaning, the cfpb imposed fines for alleged violations that occurred 19 years after the statute of limitations had expired. again, 19 years after the expressed statute of limitations. these fines are illegal under dodd-frank, and they deny business owners basic liability